Now, with some idea of what Reddit is, I came across a blog thread that asked the question: "What are some unethical life hacks?" Generally, "life hacks" are tools or techniques that we use to make living life a bit easier or more efficient. An example of a life hack that many of us probably have entertained is by using the same hanger to hang up several different shirts to conserve space and hangers in the closet.
An unethical life hack is, well, an unethical way of making life easier, probably at someone else's expense. I will link the blog post on here for your curiosity. In no way am I endorsing these advice, but go figure, this thread was really intriguing to read through.
The post that had me with my jaw wide open is what a blogger with the username "AccioSud" posted: "I remember reading that in order to keep a relationship going with someone way out of your league, you should stick nicotine-patches on them after they fall asleep, and then remove them before the person wakes up. If you do this nightly, the person will become addicted without ever realizing it. Now, if they try to break up with you, they'll unknowingly begin to experience withdrawal, including anxiety, stress, depression, etc. They'll assume that they were much better off with you, and they'll probably get back together with you.
Keep in mind, this only works if they are a non-smoker."
What did you feel when you read this? Were you ashamed that someone would even come up with this idea in the first place? Or were you ashamed because for a split second, there was a transient thought that you could possibly file this for later, potential uses?
Terrible! I don't know who would come up with something like this. At it's core, it's not a "lifehack", it's drugging a person and subjecting them to physical and emotional abuse.
ReplyDeleteTerrible! I don't know who would come up with something like this. At it's core, it's not a "lifehack", it's drugging a person and subjecting them to physical and emotional abuse.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how negatively this is received by the online community and the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the Misattribution of Arousal Effect. It is a psychological effect where people incorrectly assume the origin of their highly aroused states, much like this "life hack". For example, in the famous suspension bridge experiment, candidates had to either walk across a shaky, fear-arousing suspension bridge or a regular bridge. After reaching the other side of the bridge, the candidates are interviewed by an attractive interviewer. Those that walked across the high-arousing bridge rated their attractive interviewers more highly and with more sexually-suggestive comments. Those who walked across the average bridge rated their interviewers fairly normal. This demonstrates the effect an activity has on the physiological body which incorrectly translates into psychological arousal.
Fear and arousal share the same basic bodily symptoms: increased heart palpitations, sweaty, clammy hands, dilated pupils, etc. Without an obvious sign to the cause of such bodily fluctuation, one can instantly narrow in on the visually and aesthetically-pleasing interviewer.
There have been many dating tips for men and women to take their dates out on exciting and high-arousal dates, such as roller coaster rides, bungee jumping, bike-riding, and the-like. What makes the above activity so unethical? Is it because your significant other had no say in being subjected to the nicotine patches? But what if you deliberately took your date to a haunted house, with no intention to have a fun time, but to specifically induce a misattribution of arousal? The argument of unethically altering a person's neurochemistry does not hold up as too formal an argument since both involve some sort of neurochemistry changes imposed by the agent. Perhaps the main argument is that in the life hack, the person is left feeling addicted and experience signs of withdrawal? So does this mean the difference between the two situations is about how intense the feeling of arousal is and the difference between how much a person longs for the other afterwards?
To add on, one can argue that because both of you are doing the same high-arousal activity, it also subjects you to the same effects, whereas the nicotine patches only affect the other person. Misattribution of arousal has been proven that if one understands and realizes the actual cause of bodily changes, misattribution would not occur.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Maddy on this. If you peel back the "lifehack" part of it, which seems to have its own ethical issues, you are drugging a person. I see no difference in this from using other drugs such as flunitrazepam (roofies) on someone.
ReplyDeleteI think the example you provided represents a "lifehack" taking shape in it's most ugly and disgruntling form. To me, a "lifehack" is supposed to offer simpler methods to improve/fix certain aspects of life that one finds difficult or tedious to deal with. The purpose of it is not to diminish or endanger the life or reputation of an outside member. When one puts a nicotine patch on someone they want to seduce or gain the likeness of, a "life hack" situation migrates from innocent to malicious. But, for instance, if one was to defend the culprit of the nicotine patch and call their actions "rational," it would be a different story. Although this action seems completely irrational to the outside eye, this form of drugging may seem completing reasonable to the person doing it. I personally feel that this action is 100% unethical and violates someone in a criminalistic way. Very interesting article to say the least! Thank you for sharing :)
ReplyDeleteAs of April 15th, the two executives of DeCosters' Quality Egg company were sentenced to three months in jail following their roles in the major salmonella outbreak which occurred during 2010. According to the article attached below, they were aware of a potential contamination within their facilities prior to the outbreak, and deliberately shipped unqualified eggs to food state regulators and retailers. Generally speaking, where do you think their minds were at in this particular moment? They knowingly ran the risk of sending the bad crop of eggs out, and I question their morals regarding the potential sickness/death of the cliental and individuals consuming the eggs they've produced. Perhaps their intentions were economically driven, but even so, endangering the lives of others crosses a particular boundary I find unacceptable. Any opinions on this?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cracked-case-egg-executives-get-jail-salmonella-outbreak-n340916